If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

this is the same transfer not 2K vs 4K
on both blu rays they used same master..So you better edit your first post

I would... even if you read it twice there's an interrogation mark since the early beginning. But first I must know what's your source? I am all curious now more than before ;-) Once all the sources available have presented this as the result of a new 4K transfer, not yet available. Your input is straight down the opposite. Where have you had a different story?

AFAIK, there is even an interview (I cannot find the link now) with Kimball (who had worked with Scott in Gladiator) where he speaks about the advantage of 4K over 2K and how 4K had impressed Scott for A Good Year (made a half dozen years after Gladiator). Or Scott's declarations about Blade Runner re-mastered in 4K vs. the BD version. Or yet, our own appreciation on the material, does it count? But well, who knows? Maybe we know nothing. And you seem to be the only to show to have access to something that I'd rather find out. I am all ears, humm eyes *)

I think this new remaster is evidence that studios are listening to home theater enthusiasts who have complained about lackluster releases like Gladiator, and Gangs of New York, which was also remastered recently. It's a great thing that will hopefully lead to a new mastering philosophy that is more faithful to accurately representing the film negative rather than being optimized for smaller screens viewed from too far away (below 50 inches) for those who actually prefer an artificially sharp and grain-free looking image.

I also agree that we're not simply looking at a resolution comparison here. While there is more resolution in the new version, there are just too many hideous artifacts in the original caused by a poor grading philosophy that hinder it from being a good comparison for resolution only.

Not sure if its 2K/4K but lots was done differently in the post production workflow to end with such results. Don't forget what a better compression schema can do for an image. Not all encoders are created equal.

The old version has a very different grade, clipped highlights and aggressive edge sharpening. AFAIK aggressive edge sharpening is not something a scanner does, so I don't think this is showing the difference between a 2k scan and a 4k scan but the difference between an old mastering and a new mastering.

Graeme

What about resolution?

You can clearly see that beards and hairs are quite fuzzy in the old one.

And... Film looks great at 4K! But I wonder how much degraining took place...

Originally Posted by Michael Romano

Not sure if its 2K/4K but lots was done differently in the post production workflow to end with such results. Don't forget what a better compression schema can do for an image. Not all encoders are created equal.

It looks like the first one has heavy edge sharpening.

And the second one lots of more resolution and mild edge sharpening (if at all).

Just compare scaled parts of the frames, specially those with fine detail and compare. It's just not compression schema and what not, it's night and day.

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

I've got to say they look like different telecines just down to the different framing / cropping, but there's much more to what we're seeing than just the resolution on the telecine.

Graeme

I see better rendition of highlights. On shot #3, the old man's forehead.

Yeah, it also looks like scanner generations are different between these.

And I'm also not quite sure it's the same frame because you can notice in shot #5 that an extra in the background has his hands in another position.

Acintyah khalu ye bhava na tams tarkena yojayet
There's no use arguing over that which is inconceivable